Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread***


snitwitch

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

The OJ defense was able to chip away at the credibility of the witnesses and the process and the chain of custody of the primary evidence....the prosecution team was not particularly strong either IIRC

Agree. But he did it.  The civil trial proved that beyond any reasonable doubt  

just like trump did this.  The evidence without Bolden was overwhelming.   With? More overwhelming, I guess?

every senator knows he did it.  Many have acknowledged it and pivoted to not impeachable.   A significant exercise in cognitive dissonance is required to conclude he didn’t.  

so, if you don’t think it warrants removal, fine.  But he did it.  For sure.  

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, zoonation said:

So that isn’t what happened.  At all.  Good lord.  The information is everywhere.  Take a stroll outside of your bubble.  

Which part is untrue?

did he ask for the firing of shokin? - he said he did...

was shokin investigating Burisma? Yep

was Burisma paying Hunter millions of dollars - yes again

these three facts alone are enough probable cause

Edited by Sam Quentin
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, ShamrockPride said:

USA, now 0-3 all time for impeachments, maybe time to alter or get rid of this clearly useless measure.

This post shows great ignorance of history, and should be clarified.

First off, there were 19 impeachments in Congress prior to this one, and they resulted in 8 convictions. Additionally, 4 other people left office before a Senate trial could be completed. So, the actual ratio could be expressed as either 8-20 or 12-20.

Also, your post conveniently ignores the fact that Richard Nixon would not have resigned if we had altered or gotten rid of the supposedly "useless" measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sam Quentin said:

Which part is untrue?

did he ask for the firing of shokin? - he said he did?

was shokin investigating Burisma? Yep

was Burisma paying Hunter millions of dollars - yes again

these three facts alone are enough probable cause

He, along with many western allies, called for Shokin to be fired because he was corrupt.  And doing nothing.  It never had anything to do with protecting his son from investigation.  In fact, by calling for a real prosecutor Biden arguably exposes his son to real investigation.  Of course, there is no evidence that Biden Jr. was corrupt beyond your run of the mill nepotism that happens all the time in Washington and, specifically, in Trump’s own administration (see Kushner for example).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:
7 minutes ago, zoonation said:

So that isn’t what happened.  At all.  Good lord.  The information is everywhere.  Take a stroll outside of your bubble.  

Which part is untrue?

did he ask for the firing of shokin? - he said he did...

was shokin investigating Burisma? Yep

:lol:

Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma. He had stalled all investigations into alleged corruption.

That's why Obama and Biden wanted him gone.

There's just no way for Trump supporters to change this fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

He said if you don’t fire the prosecutor Investigating the company giving my son millions of dollars for free you aren’t getting the aid.   That looks like probable cause to me and reason for an investigation  the clear things up.

No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

Which part is untrue?

did he ask for the firing of shokin? - he said he did...

was shokin investigating Burisma? Yep

was Burisma paying Hunter millions of dollars - yes again

these three facts alone are enough probable cause

I love when people yell "probable cause"! but then can't explain what specific crime they think was committed.

I mean, you may as well yell "Erie doctrine!" :lol:

Edited by [scooter]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It blows my mind that people think Trump actually was concerned about corruption in Ukraine.  I mean, we are talking about a guy who started a fake “university” to defraud people out of money.  He settled that case for 25 million dollars while he was president. 

He is a con man.  Always has been.  There are numerous other examples.  

But he was rooting out corruption in Ukraine?  Lmao.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Brunell4MVP said:

This topic can be closed.  Start a new one with Pelosi’s next most important idea. Impeaching Trump again.  She’s killed the party.  Congrats Nancy. 

It's a shame that you think her vote was completely incomprehensible, Brunell4MVP.

  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

The “personal favor” was a request for truthful information that, as PRESIDENT he has a legal right to ask for.  He requested assistance in the investigation of a potential crime and asked the UKRAINE to direct information to the DOJ, not himself, not his campaign, but the DOJ.  It’s not really personal at all and the only way it could impact the election would be if the DOJ were to publicly acknowledge such an investigation, which is against their policy.

So, what he asked for was within the bounds of his legal authority, in the interests of the country, properly delegated to the DOJ and of no consequence to the election per DOJ policy.

 

Does Rudy work for Barr now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

:lol:

Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma. He had stalled all investigations into alleged corruption.

That's why Obama and Biden wanted him gone.

There's just no way for Trump supporters to change this fact.

Shokin’s sworn statement says otherwise.

we also know that the money laundering allegations against Burisma were reduced to tax evasion under the new prosecutor.

the only way to know for sure is to get the facts from an investigation.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sam Quentin said:

Shokin’s sworn statement says otherwise.

we also know that the money laundering allegations against Burisma were reduced to tax evasion under the new prosecutor.

the only way to know for sure is to get the facts from an investigation.

Or Biden could just pay Ukraine off with campaign money, make them sign a NDA, and go about his business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sam Quentin said:

Bribery, blackmail money laundering....I think that is clear to most

What’s your theory on: who was bribed, who was blackmailed and what laundering was done?

What do you think Hunter Biden’s role was in that?

If the investigation was legit, and trump is truly concerned, why:

1. did he wait until 2019 right after Biden announced his candidacy to apply pressure?

2.  Hasn’t anything happened since the WB came forward?  If legit, why did trump abandon the entire thing?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sam Quentin said:
13 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

I love when people yell "probable cause"! but then can't explain what specific crime they think was committed.

I mean, you may as well yell "Erie doctrine!" :lol:

Bribery, blackmail money laundering....I think that is clear to most

This fantastic new definition of "money laundering" -- i.e., receiving money from shady entities for services rendered -- is not considered to be a crime by Republicans. We know this to be the case because they have endorsed the President and his company receiving money from all kinds of shady entities (private foreign companies, foreign dictatorships, etc.). That's just capitalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zoonation said:
9 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

Bribery, blackmail money laundering....I think that is clear to most

What’s your theory on: who was bribed, who was blackmailed and what laundering was done?

What do you think Hunter Biden’s role was in that?

If the investigation was legit, and trump is truly concerned, why:

1. did he wait until 2019 right after Biden announced his candidacy to apply pressure?

2.  Hasn’t anything happened since the WB came forward?  If legit, why did trump abandon the entire thing?  

I'm still kinda curious why Trump was directing Parnas and Furman to fire (and/or "get rid of") Yovanovitch. Seems odd to tell those 2 goons to do it and not Pompeo. Seems the world may never know.

:popcorn:

Edited by Amused to Death
Especially since Trump doesn't even know Parnas. Allegedly.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Brunell4MVP said:

This topic can be closed.  Start a new one with Pelosi’s next most important idea. Impeaching Trump again.  She’s killed the party.  Congrats Nancy. 

Nobody is having a worse week than Nancy Pelosi and it is absolutely fabulous to see. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:
20 minutes ago, [scooter] said:

:lol:

Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma. He had stalled all investigations into alleged corruption.

That's why Obama and Biden wanted him gone.

There's just no way for Trump supporters to change this fact.

Shokin’s sworn statement says otherwise.

Sorry, but actions in 2015 speak louder than a hastily-written piece of paper in 2019.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Sam Quentin said:

The “personal favor” was a request for truthful information that, as PRESIDENT he has a legal right to ask for.  He requested assistance in the investigation of a potential crime and asked the UKRAINE to direct information to the DOJ, not himself, not his campaign, but the DOJ.  It’s not really personal at all and the only way it could impact the election would be if the DOJ were to publicly acknowledge such an investigation, which is against their policy.

So, what he asked for was within the bounds of his legal authority, in the interests of the country, properly delegated to the DOJ and of no consequence to the election per DOJ policy.

First off, we know this is all a lie because Trump dropped it the moment he was caught.

Second, it may be true that the President is allowed to seek truthful information. However, he's not allowed to violate the law and circumvent Congress to do it. And we know that Trump violated the law because the GAO confirmed as such.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

I'm still kinda curious why Trump was directing Parnas and Furman to fire (and/or "get rid of") Yovanovitch. Seems odd to tell those 2 goons to do it and not Pompeo. Seems the world may never know.

:popcorn:

It just goes with his catchphrase. You know, "You're gotten rid of!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zoonation said:

Great post.  Although, I would suggest that the evidence OJ committed that murder was overwhelming.  Not simply “some” evidence.   

Well, I was using the definition of probable cause in my jurisdiction. I'd certainly agree that there was a preponderance of evidence as well (and therefore I agree with the civil verdict). 

But, this is all probably irrelevant to my original post. Point is that it just isn't credible to say that he did absolutely nothing wrong or at least ill-advised and, further, it's not some conspiracy. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Henry Ford said:

Absolutely.  You say OJ, and nobody even thinks about a brutally murdered woman and her date anymore.

Forever trump will be listed as an impeached president.  Ok.  So?  Still president.  Still getting reelected.   But I know it makes you feeeellllll good.  Whatever that's worth 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, supermike80 said:

Forever trump will be listed as an impeached president.  Ok.  So?  Still president.  Still getting reelected.   But I know it makes you feeeellllll good.  Whatever that's worth 

No one should gloat. There are no winners. It's sad that this is where we are as a country. 

 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patrick Bateman said:

No one should gloat. There are no winners. It's sad that this is where we are as a country. 

 

Not gloating.  I agree.  But these are facts. 

Facts trump emotions everytime.  But democrats cant understand that and are getting out politicized at every turn. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...